Archive for rants

The inexplicable reason we seperate things

March 29, 2012 / Luke / No comments

It was pointed out to me recently that it’s not right to seperate ourselves from the environment.  The point was made by a colleague that really, nothing is seperate from anything else.  It’s all deeply connected and related.

This doesn’t become obvious until you think more carefully about the obstructions we place in the road of our lives and the way in which we develop core notions of seperation.  The concept of the environment is a case in point.  If you consider it as seperate, then how is seperate from the completeness of things?  You say,’Well it’s seperate because it’s the environment.’  The truth is that the environment is no more connected, that it is seperate, it’s a category we use to define something.  You will never be seperate from the environment.   You are part of it.  So my colleague argues.

This also continues to the way we think about work, play and life.  We bracket out and seperate things so we can categorise them into order.  We shape them, force them to fit our internal mode of thinking, the question is why?  You see business people talking abstractly about ethics through the ‘this is business’ motto, you see salesmen talking about ‘capturing’ leads and my favourite:  Process managers talking about people as elements of a flowchart.

Why do we dehumanise ourselves like this?

Category: rants /

What does it mean to be a scholar

February 15, 2012 / Luke / No comments

Being a scholar means a lot of things.  To me there is a really simple definition of scholarship however, that eloquently captures the meaning of scholarship.  I picked it up when I was reading through the oldest English Speaking journal in the world called Philosophical Transaction. 

Sharing Knowledge.

Scholarship was originally for people who desired to share knowledge and to show people the interesting findings of their most recent research.  So to me being a scholar means sharing knowledge, ideas, findings, results and such for furtherance of knowledge.

Today we have over 19000 journals ranked by the Federal Government in a wide array of areas.  You couldn’t tell me we had that much knowledge being produced by this country, and yes I realise that this is an entirely different question.  However, the first and foremost responsibility of a scholar is the production of new knowledge, be it about: teaching, research or how to run a chaotic university.

Why then do we have this situation where knowledge is fragmented into paywalls and disciplinary silos?  How can this be good for the advancement of knowledge?

A short journey but surely there’s a better way.

Category: rants /

Do you feel like you are going to explode sometimes?

March 2, 2011 / Luke / No comments

I had wondered why sometimes we are thinking the way we do as a society.  I often think that we just act and never work back, abductively, to an explanation.  Take for example the person who will only act according to the key performance indicators as a point.  They are right to be following these but why do we set them?  Honestly.  What if they are wrong?

I remember thinking once that when make people accountable for KPI’s we create an invisible boundary around their performance.  We say: this far and NO FURTHER!  What a joke.  How can leadership really occur outside the contextual boundary of human judgement?  It’s almost as if we can’t see the forest because the trees (KPIs) are so thick and filled with performance!

I feel like I am going to explode sometimes because I honestly can’t see passed people who can’t move beyond their KPI’s.  I mean bloody hell, if there is a good decision to be made shouldn’t we invest our time and energy in the people we have hired to do the job.  I don’t know I am just venting out here.

I also feel like I am going to explode when I hear people saying to me that they can’t do something because it’s not possible.  But I digress.

Category: creativity, personal development, rants /

Making a comeback

March 1, 2011 / Luke / 4 comments

I have not been posting on this blog for some time.   I have been debating if I should continue or fill in it like the recently dug holes in my backyard.  I thought I would make one last comeback.  The reason?

Somebody I know died recently you can read about it here.  Although I never met him face to face his posting of comments on this blog made me realise I had something to offer.  We shared an interest in Systems Thinking, Ackoff and design and we had many interesting conversations over a period of years on this blog.  When I was reflecting on this today I realised that I do have something to offer.  This well respected man thought so… even though he passed some time ago.

So I am making a comeback because I believe I have something to offer.  I am not entirely certain what that is, but I plan to figure it out.

Welcome back … me!

Category: making decisions, rants /

What lies behind the stories

November 17, 2010 / Luke / 3 comments

I am reading a book on Narratives and research, as losers like me are want to do, when I stumbled across something strange.  The author was talking about stories.  Of course, it’s a book on narratives you say.  However, it was about the stories people tell.    It read something like this:

The story behind the story is part of a bigger story that we have all agreed on at some point.

It’s a meta-narrative that acts as a guide post for what we come to hold as true and dear.  I had a further problem with this, as I usually do.  Exactly what is a meta-narrative?  A collection of stories that explain the other stories we tell?  No, that’s explaining something through association.  How do we come to tell stories and make sense?  Why do we make sense?  Do we make sense?

We use instruments, various devices and all kinds of mental tools to construct the language, thoughts and ideas we have.  Yet, it leaves me with a question I can’t answer.  What lies behind the stories?  A void, blackness… certain death for all who live there.  What if there was a world of stories existing above those stories that encapsulated all stories ever told?  I wonder what it would look like.  I congratulate you if you got this far in this absurd post.  I need to write more but less of that which doesn’t matter… like my trivial meanderings.

Category: rants /

The Failing Academic Enterprise?

July 13, 2010 / Luke / 3 comments

Recently, Seth Godin posted about what he called the Ism schism:

Modernism, classicism, realism, impressionism–dividing things into schools of thought–or even warring camps–makes it easy to create tension and thus attention.

When I first tweeted about this my thoughts were wow, I have faced this problem my whole academic life.   Since 2002 I have been toying with this idea introduced by a former colleague about crossing paradigm boundaries.  The ism schism eh?

Here’s where the problem is for problem solvers.  There aren’t problems of information technology, information systems, management or operations research, there are just problems, we are people we frame them.  We have invented weasel words in academia and built our kingdoms on the back of dead philosophers and then wore a path to the goal of making knowledge for the masses.   So what’s the point?  I am reading a book about the social sciences at the moment and how case studies became popular, then declined, only to become popular again and yet in both falls there is a consistent thread bringing them together.  Pointless debates about methodology.  You’d think that by now given a couple of hundred years we would have solved some of our social problems, we aren’t even close.   Not even knocking on the door, while science and other areas are shooting ahead at a lightning pace.  Why?

Perhaps the answer lies in the question: Why can’t academics solve problems?  Well how long an explanation do you want me give?  Should academics solve problems or just catalog and file them?  In a recent conversation with a senior member of staff at Griffith, I was told that I need to find my ‘patch’ and become known for something.  This is very good advice.  Yet, I am reminded of my PhD literature review of the problem solving literature that covers six major discipline areas including: Education, Philosophy, Business, Humanities, Law and Science.  Why?  Because I was stupid enough to make a commitment to study the problem of the problem.  Problems are like people, they are everywhere… funny that!  The issue now for me, a somewhat backward less modern post-post modern academic is where do I fit?   Nowhere and everywhere.  Do we start micro-defining problems?  Or macro-defining meta-knowledge?  The whole wife and two kids issue fits into this somewhere as well… dammit.

So why is the academic enterprise failing?

It’s hard to say, but I wonder what John Dewey would say if he were alive.  He once argued that we can only think about life as a process if we understood problems from the point of view of the people who gave them meaning.  He wasn’t talking about individuals only but also groups.  People who give meaning to things as a byproduct of being human.  Academics have categorised a large percentage of problems into cubes such as ‘management’, ‘information systems’, ‘international business’ and so on.  These are disciplines that have their own frames of reference, literature and so forth, yet they all have the problem of a problem and this covers differing views of what concerns us and how we think about it.   To answer my own questions, knowledge has fragmented and studies now are micro, with a very small sphere of influence.  This is a shame because we could combine our various disciplinary smarts and solve REAL problems, not imaginary ‘methodology’ problems.  A philosophical problem has meaning, it surely does, yet the impact of the meaning is almost always meaningless unless the problem is non-trivial and not just philosophical.

I will finish with a thought first brought to my attention from a book about conflict resolution.  It’s easy to say I am right and you are wrong, but it’s much harder to say in which way are both of us right?

Category: life problems, rants / Tags: ,

Stephen Conroy doesn’t represent me

May 28, 2010 / Luke / No comments

I am growing tired of a lot of things lately dammit.  Here’s one of them:

The people in charge of our internet.

As an Australian academic who teaches information policy to international students I find this kind of rant from our senator embarrassing.  I mean really, attacking Google over a mistake with wifi data?   Then going on to say that it was a breach of privacy?  Anyone who has been around computers long enough knows how easy it is to get access to free wifi.  I wonder, where these networks secured and do the people who own them even know they were secured?  WHO KNOWS?

The students in my information policy class last night discussed this and came up with much better interpretations than the present person sitting in the job.  Even though I took the time to consider the internet filter and other issues… I think I can safely say that this man doesn’t represent me at all.  He keeps saying and doing things that boggle the mind.

Ok the rant is over for now.

Category: rants /

The too hard basket: Why problem solving at work is hard

April 28, 2010 / Luke / 6 comments

But it’s not impossible?  I was in a meeting today talking about research and it occured to me why we need to think and keep on thinking about how we think about thinking in problem solving.

Why?

A situation arose where a tough issue was up for the committee to discuss and the chair rightly made the statement that it’s probably too hard.   Often they are.   The kind of issues that require a lot of stakeholders, key input from a variety of people and large scale discussions of lots of people and many perspectives.    Reaching consensus becomes hard, finding agreement becomes difficult and navigating the terrain of politics becomes very messy.  In a hierarchy it’s even worse.   The balance of power rests on the shoulders of those at the top who often are framing problems under pressure and as such go for what looks like the best option for everyone.  This leads to compromise, satisificing and a situation where we all get some of what we want sometimes and everyone sacrifices something to keep the other group of people happy.   In one way this kind of problem solving is negotiation and fails to really handle the deep issue that’s being discussed.   Yet, in most situations I have been in, this kind of situation is exactly what we have to live with.

The too hard basket: Decisions that will never be made

True creativity that involves finding new perspectives and better ideas are often missing.  Why?  It’s too-hard to argue, it’s too hard to fight, it’s too hard to offend people, it’s too hard to be creative, it’s too hard to upset a risk averse culture, it’s too hard to risk the failure that might hold up my promotion, it’s too hard to risk the mortgage, it’s too hard to challenge people because they might not like me, it’s too hard to face up to reality that innovation requires a big risk with a small chance of reward, it’s too hard to create leadership and vision in an apathetic culture and so on and so on and so on.   What’s too hard?  Problem solving is too hard so we don’t do it.  We work around it.  We never make the decisions that need to be made because it’s too hard.

What constraints are there?  Political, social, cultural…?  Lots, that’s what makes it too hard.   The cult of ‘balance’ and ‘feasibility’ will tell you that ‘it’s too hard’.  They are right it is.  We shouldn’t be ashamed of making these kinds of decisions because the opportunity to truly creative isn’t something you will find at most universities, businesses or fund raising events.  No, it’s something you will have to search for.

True Creativity and Problem Solving means using the too hard basket

Rules are good except when they stand in the way of change.  To be truly creative we need to be making decisions where we have the guts to reframe.  Have you heard the saying don’t throw the baby out with the bath water?   In most circumstances I have been in we empty a little bit of the water, keep the baby when we should have really tossed the kid and drained the tub.  That’s not a good picture is it?  Yet, that hidden assumption that things are generally ok is so bad it’s toxic.  Sometimes, things are pretty far from ok.  They are not ok.  They are failing.

Failure is the signpost of change that says: this didn’t work.  It’s like Microsoft Windows really or a badly leaking dingy… just patch it up!  The bastard is sinking and water is coming in the boat but hey that’s ok because we have a lot of tape in here and that will keep this thing floating until the next poor sucker comes along and patches it up.  The problem is…. it’s too hard to change when it’s easier to get people to agree, which in itself is very, very hard.

So what are we to do?

I don’t know.  But I know this: things don’t always get worse before they get better, sometimes they keep getting worse until they become bottom of the fridge nasty.   So we are faced with a tough choice.  Do we innovate, negotiate or detonate?  These are tough choices.  In my meeting experience this morning I caught a glimpse of how hard it is to be innovative and create new directions when you answer to so many people.  It’s difficult and requires support.   In my limited experience, real problem solving means: bringing out the concern, the perspectives that construct it, the stakeholders and finding ways to reach a place where the problem is no longer a problem.  It sounds simple?  It isn’t!

Category: creativity, rants, strategy /

And around and around we go: How the RBA and the government are refusing to create new solutions for housing affordability

March 31, 2010 / Luke / No comments

When I read articles like this one I am left scratching my head at the ability of people in power to tackle serious problems.    Here’s a quote from the RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia) leader man:

“I think it is a mistake to assume that a, you know, riskless easy, guaranteed way to Prosperity is just to be leveraged up into property,” he told the Seven Network. “You know, it isn’t going to be that easy.”

He added that he worries about whether future generations will be able to achieve home ownership.

“I’ve got kids that within not too many more years are going to want somewhere of their own to live and you wonder, you know, how is that going to be afforded because prices are getting quite high.”

Prices are continuing to rise on the back of demand from a growing population outstripping housing supply.

Is this guy on crack? He’s the leader of the reserve bank and he wonders if his children will be able to afford a house?  So the leaders of this nation are quite happy to let the rich get richer and increase housing in-affordability in Australia?

The place where I grew up is the third most expensive place to live in the world and it’s not that flash.  For me to buy a house in my suburb means that I need 6.5 going 7 times my current income, almost as bad as places like London or Sydney.   So what’s the answer from the man in charge.  Allow me to paraphrase for you:

“Oh who knows.  I mean my kids can’t afford it but instead of actually managing the issue you know what I am going to do?  I am going to treat this as if it has nothing to do with me.  It’s the market!   Oh by the way, if you are looking to get into the market, you can’t because we made it too expensive for the average young Australian wage earner.  Sorry about that.  So you young people, just sit around collecting degrees and um er… yeah as you were.”

This is not solving the problem, it’s absolving it.  Sitting there and wondering as it passes you buy.  No offense man, but seriously if you don’t know what to do, what the hell am I supposed to tell my kids?  Good luck kids, get a massive home loan and live in the middle of Uranus.

A lesson in Problem Absolving – Problem Solving is not doing nothing!

The late Russell Ackoff called problem absolution (doing nothing) the option most people take.  Nothing is being done to fix this issues so it cycles around the system creating no improvement.  When a situation is improved, we notice.  We say, ‘holy crap, I can afford a house.’  When it gets worse we say, ‘OMG, the problem isn’t getting any better.’  Simple?  Doing nothing is, ‘Oh that’s a problem, er… come back and see me in a year and you will be ok.’

I am at a complete loss to explain a lack of governmental response to the price of houses.  Even with a grant, the boost and any other kind of incentive, there is no way I can ever hope to live anywhere near I work and raise my family.  It just won’t happen.  It’s not just me either.  Data from the latest ABS survey indicates (it does go here to check it out) that housing debt carried by Australian families is approaching the 40% mark.  Putting aside my hobby horse for a moment, consider the ramifications of that.  What happens if that becomes too much in the future?  What happens to our economy?  Forget about home ownership: what about long term security?

Possible Solutions

I am not an economist, I am barely an academic so here goes.  A list of things we could do right now:

  • Take away the financial imperative: Create a situation where home ownership is regulated by the government.  A years wage (on average) for a house.  Ok, so like I said, I am not an economist.  Economists: why won’t this work?
  • Remodel work so it can be done from anywhere and support the mobile workforce:  Create hubs and campuses for city dwellers in places like Uranus, I mean Pluto, I mean the country.  Change the reason for living in a city to one of lifestyle and promote that.  Sure, that will drive prices higher and create weird developer towns like North Lakes.  It will give losers like me an entry point.
  • Stop blaming the market and think about price ceilings: There is a natural level of supply for demand but here’s the kicker, Price. Supply and Demand is regulated by the price people are willing and able to pay. These stupid arguments about not enough land, blah blah blah.  What about price?  The argument goes: price drives up demand because of the lack of supply for a scarce resource.  I.e.  From the above quoted article: “Prices are continuing to rise on the back of demand from a growing population outstripping housing supply.”  If this were true why is there so much vacant land in the outer regions of Australia?  A better way of saying this would be: At the current price, which is rising due to the perceived lack of supply and a growing base of people wanting to buy in city areas, housing is become more expensive.  Therefore, demand for these city properties is surging and the price ceiling (the price people are willing and able to pay), has yet to be reached.   Oh but is there a price ceiling?  I thought house prices only ever went up… right?  WRONG!  Conventional economics says that price regulates supply and demand, yet I can’t find a single article that clearly explains this, why?  Well, I have no idea about economics that’s why!
  • Change our desires: This is a tough one.  We want a house because we desire.  Give me some drugs so I don’t want me own place. Now I know why a lot of people smoke weed (I don’t).
  • Make bigger caravan parks: Okay so now I am getting silly.  At least I have attempted to apply some ideas to the problem instead of turning on the money hose or sitting back, scratching my arse saying,’Oh yeah that is a problem eh!’.

As I write this I am pondering my future and looking with dismay as I save money, labour under yet another dragon of a landlord and work towards my first home purchase.  The question, that will no doubt go unanswered is this:  What are we going to do about it?  The answer I expect is nothing because all of the rhetoric I see coming out of the media is complete bullshit.  You know, stuff like: Save a deposit (can’t save that much – I have two kids), don’t want a massive house for your first home (I am looking for a small 3 Bedroom place for me and me kids bro), don’t complain, Entitlement mentality (I am not entitled but this is a desire you are profiting from mr. developer, take it away and I write about something else) and all the other shit the media says people in my generation are guilty of.  I say, cram it with walnuts jack! How’s this:  If I save for ten years I will have saved one-quarter of what I need in today’s prices.  What will the prices be in ten years?  A million dollars for a complete dog box with no windows in the middle of the ocean?  Jesus wept!

I will leave you with this link to remind you of what happens when we don’t take a proactive approach towards our problems.  I would also recommend that all Australians read the Subprime Solution by Robert Shiller.  Sure, that may not happen here but it may help us structure the problem in a way that leads to… OMG… a solution!

Category: making decisions, rants / Tags: ,

Does your life make sense?

March 17, 2010 / Luke / 3 comments

Mine doesn’t.

Category: life problems, rants / Tags:
Page 1 of 912345...Last »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee